>Our group will provide the statistical evidence to pinpoint certain
>counties election results as being suspect, provide statistical evidence
>you can take to court and leave the rest to you other experts.
>
>It's actually a huge project our group is undertaking but I believe we can
>do it and that our methods will work.
>
>Thank you for explaining it.
>
>Regards,
>
>Kathy
>

'Kay, we can do that. You point us to where there's trouble, we'll home
in there.

One part of public records I didn't cover: there's generally an "initial
response window" (in California, 10 days) in which (at a minimum) they
"describe what they've got" and what it'll cost. They then often
(usually) ask for a 20-day extension, or they can cough up at the 10 day
point.

The "day 10 letter" will also contain any objections to what you're
asking for.

So knowing how strongly they object to being dug into, we have a pretty
damn good clue who's dirty :).

If we then cross-reference that data from our (BBV.org) records request
with your statistics, we'll know where to REALLY dig deep 'cuz there's
bodies buried. "Digging" often means suing under these open records
laws over wrongful denial. A good example of a legal decision in such a
case is the 1986 California Supreme Court "CBS v. Block" which can be
read at:

And yes, it's gun-related but it's directly about public records so if
you want to see how a court copes with these issues, there ya go, your
choice of my short summary or the whole unedited text below that.

Jim
==================================================================
= The content of this message, with the exception of any external
= quotations under fair use, are released to the Public Domain
==================================================================
Received on Tue Nov 30 23:17:27 2004